Posted on 01/27/2014 7:57:57 PM PST by matthewrobertolson
For Protestantism to make much sense, the Church must have, at some point, abandoned the truth and become apostate. Otherwise, Protestantism has no license to exist. But when was this "Great Apostasy"? Protestants offer varying opinions, but none of them hold up to scrutiny.
Was it right after the deaths of the Apostles?
A view most supported by Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses is that, after the Apostles, the Church quickly fell into apostasy. This would be a massive blow at both God's promise to guard His Church (Joshua 1:5; Matthew 16:18) and all of the doctrine mentioned hereafter. But if this were true, would not one of the disciples of the Apostles have spoken out? We have writings from many of them, including Pope St. Clement I, St. Barnabas, St. Polycarp, and St. Ignatius of Antioch. None of them mention a "Great Apostasy". But even if we indulge the other side and admit the possibility that even these men fell away, we still have early documents and creeds (like the Didache) that were probably formulated under the authority of the Apostles. Because Christians continued to be in accord with these extra-Biblical teachings, we know that they must have been in accord with the true Church.
Was it at the time of Constantine?
A semi-popular view is that Constantine corrupted Christianity by encouraging "pagan" elements and demanding a decision from the First Council of Nicaea. This is the view that I come into contact with most often, but it is also the most problematic. If the Church became apostate by 337 (the year of Constantine's death), then the Biblical canon – which only really started to be compiled by St. Athanasius in 367 – may be wrong: we would have no assurance of its infallibility. Also, on top of that, all later theology would be necessarily nulled.
Was it during the Middle Ages?
The possibility of an apostasy in Medieval times seems far-fetched, too. This theory revolves, primarily, around hatred for some "bad" popes. Rather than focusing on doctrinal issues, proponents of this theory typically resort to character defamation. Many attack the Crusades, which tamed a fanatic Islam, and such. But in this period, literacy rates increased, art flourished, the university system developed, laws were better-codified, and the Bible became more accessible to lay people [1, 2]. The only seemingly objectionable doctrinal development was Pope Boniface VIII's declaration, "Outside of the Church, there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins", but even this originates with St. Cyprian! The teaching relates to: 1) the fact that baptism (whether by water, blood, or desire) brings one into the Church (even if done within a Protestant community), because the sacrament was entrusted to Her and She allows anyone with the right intent to perform it, and 2) the importance of conscience and the dangers of apostasy. Nothing worthy of damnation here!
Was it just before the “Reformation”?
The idea of a “restoration” being needed just before the “Reformation” also seems improbable. This common idea is based on the "selling" of indulgences [1, 2, 3] (Martin Luther attacks the practice multiple times in his Ninety-Five Theses), but is mostly due to a misunderstanding. Again, the Protestant understanding usually relies on the assault of characters: people like Johann Tetzel are demonized -- perhaps rightfully -- for abusing the system. But this abuse was not a doctrinal problem of the Church; rather, it was a disciplinary problem of men. Indulgences simply remove the temporal punishment due for past sin -- they are not a "Get out of Hell free" card -- and even when they were "sold," they required some sort of penance. Indulgences only have a salvatory effectiveness (remittance of time in Purgatory) if the recipient is already destined for Heaven. So, it would seem that the fuss is all about nothing.
In conclusion, I see none of these options as likely.
---
Make sure to join me for a Live Chat with Shaun McAfee on Thursday, January 30 @ 8 PM Eastern time / 7 PM Central time. It should be interesting.
“Follow” me on Twitter, “Like” Answering Protestants on Facebook, Add Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+, and “Subscribe” to my YouTube apologetic videos.
Do you really understand what Purgatory is? It is a place where we can offer our suffering in not seeing God immediately as reparation for the time on earth that we didn’t make that reparation.
Examples might be that I never said I’m sorry to someone I hurt with my words.
Or than I have never forgiven someone who committed calumny against me.
Purgatory does not diminish Christ at all — where are you getting these strange ideas?
We know what worship means and we watch what you do...What you say you do has little to do with the truth...
You have turned Mary into a supernatural power which then is a god(dess)...You kneel and pray to her and ask her to award you with salvation, grace, peace, help, health and every other thing under the sun that only God can provide...That's worship whether you like the term or not...
Of course not, neglect of the Word of God was rampant, man made doctrines abounded. This set the table for the efforts of Leo X. That's why no one batted an eye at the simony. No one considered it odd that they now paid for indulgences or for masses that freed their loved ones from 'purgatory'. None were astounded at the use of secular power by the church. The common pew sitter or stander depending where you were, having no access to the Word on account of lack of Scripture in reach of their local church or because of illiteracy, relied on the same wolves who consumed their substance, to tell them what to believe. Then as now, secular power is only interested in retaining that power, dependency on gov't and ignorance of the goings on beyond the threshold of one's hovel were things the secular power and the church of the time wanted to encourage.
How long before? Is the date that important? It certainly was during the time that the church was engaging in the accumulation of secular power by promising spiritual succor to the kings of the earth that came to vie for its favor. Having relegated its mission from God to a secondary status, anything became good, secular power enabled them to reach out quicker to those it was charged with serving and had the added benefit of being more profitable.
Check your church's history and look for the beginnings of when it began to morph from a servant to all to something that desired to be the Master of all. There will be the time of the changing of the focus and reveal when the change that culminated in the 'Great Apostasy' occurred. When the real Great Apostasy spoken of in the Bible comes, it will dwarf what had come before it, but the cause and the motives will be the same. The opponent hasn't changed.
Why do you think Catholics are so determined to lie to everyone about their religion? Why are they so committed to the sin of idolatry?
He said "It is finished". It mean that the price required by the Father for sin had been paid.
As for the timing of grace, I thought Catholics liked to talk about God being outside of time, foreknowledge isn't causation or some such. Till man has been conceived, he has no need of grace but as the hymnist put it so eloquently "grace in time of need supply, while I live and when I die." That grace will be supplied in abundance to the believer in the amount required and it is sufficient. 2 Corinthians 12:9
“Someone should let New Advent know:”
Why? As far as I can see nowhere in what you quoted did it say the Church ever authorized the sale indulgences.
“Can you please provide the letter with the alleged order not to sell indulgences?”
If you mean Albrecht’s letter of instruction, look it up. I listed the source which shows no sale was possible if everyone simply followed the instructions.
“And why would Leo offer it in the first place and then declare that he will keep one half the returns, if the selling of indulgences was refused?”
Your question makes no sense. The fact that there was no selling of indulgences doesn’t mean that people did not follow the instructions and donate if they were able. Those who could not donate anything still received the indulgence (that is, the certificate) like anyone else. That also shows there were no sales intended.
“And why would Albrecth, in his zeal, simply want to give money to the Pope which he gained through selling indulgences?”
Albrecht never intended for money to be made by the selling of indulgences in the first place. Donations were to be collected. A portion was to be sent to Pope Leo - who had granted the right to the preaching of the indulgence. Neither Pope Leo nor Archbishop Albrecht authorized any sale of indulgences.
“Global warming would have been much worse if there had not been so much cool weather. Explain that, your assertion is similar.”
No. Better than that why don’t you identify and explain papal infallibility and then explain why it is wrong. Please do not look up any sources. Rely on what you tacitly are claiming to already know.
It is done. It is finished. It is consummated.
You say that the doctrine of Purgatory implies a denial of what Jesus said on the cross: It is finished.
If what you say is true, then: I was baptized in 1953. But Jesus said “It is finished” about 28 AD. Therefore, by having me baptized, my parents were asserting that “it” was NOT finished.
To put it another way:
If the notion of the change or growth of people in Purgatory is precluded by Jesus’ words “It is finished,” then the notion of ANY form of change or spiritual growth in people is precluded by Jesus’ words, “It is finished.”
Every time a sinner turns away from sin, he is contradicting Jesus, because turning away from sin implies that the work of salvation is not finished.
Would you make a list of all those who qualify for entry into Heaven, for those of that are to stupid to figure out who they are?
Read a little History of Catholicism in the book, "A Woman Rides the Beast" by Dave Hunt.
Therefore, by having me baptized, my parents were asserting that “it” was NOT finished.
Hardly, they recognized that they are sinners, that you were conceived in iniquity and needed a Savior. Great parents. Sin wasn't finished at the cross because people still live on earth. But the price of sin has been paid. As another hymnist said 'death may no longer appall you.' Christians need not fear death, God has forgiven their sin for the sake of His Son Jesus and made them heirs with Him in His Kingdom.
because turning away from sin implies that the work of salvation is not finished.
No, it recognizes that sanctification isn't finished and that won't happen until heaven. When robed with Christ's righteousness before the throne of God, we stand free and guiltless. Not though our merit, our time in 'purgatory' but because of the work and righteousness of Christ. Humans will sin till death some more than others but all will sin. But that price has been paid, that is what Christ's cry of Tetelestai! means for us.
Cool comes to the plate, shaking the dust off the shoes, takes the first pitch ... low ball one ...
His 9th year in the league ... traded from the Twins 3 years ago ...
He steps back in ... the pitch ...
THERE'S A DRIVE TO DEEP CENTER FIELD ... THAT'S WAY BACK ... BACK ... NO ONE WILL GET THAT ONE ... IT'S GONE! ... HOME RUN ... FOR COOL ...
Not likely I will forget it.
While in Saudi Arabia I acquired the habit of daily Mass. I continue it here at home SO I get a sermon EVERY DAY of my life.
During the homily, right after the priest reads the Gospel, we never get lectures or scoldings and when the priest does correct he is NEVER condescending.
Easy to take, listen to, learn, do and appreciate the MANY gifts from God.
Because, like the nation of Israel all throughout the Old Testament, the vast majority of them are not regenerate.
That is the problem with this argument right from the beginning. It just sets up a straw man. It assumes that the church as a human institution is Christ’s bride, rather than it being all those who truly believe. In Revelation, Jesus had different messages for different churches, and even where He found fault in the church overall, including that it allowed false doctrines which Jesus hates, He found believers in it who had remained faithful.
Only the Spirit of God can totally know a church, but as Jesus’ messages to the churches in Revelation show us, we can know the doctrines of churches and test whether or not they agree with God’s Word.
I was raised a Lutheran in a very Catholic area, and have a Catholic convert parent. I’ve been open to the Catholic Church because I only wanted to follow Lord Jesus in truth. Over a long time I’ve seen that I can’t accept much of essential Catholic doctrine because it twists or ignores God’s Word. For example, it calls Mary sinless and says it was necessary, for Jesus to be without sin (even though it was the Holy Spirit who placed Him in Mary’s womb, somehow) , for Mary to have been conceived without sin. It doesn’t explain how Mary, though, could be without sin if *her* parents weren’t. The Catholic belief on Jesus and Mary requires a sinless lineage going back to Adam and Eve themselves, and neither were sinless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.